Sunday, 17 February 2013

Guest Post: Trident?

During the cold war
there was a genuine threat to the UK and Western Europe from Soviet
military expansionism. The Soviet Union had the military capabilities to
destroy the UK's military presence in Germany and then push westward
and destroy the UK's RAF air defences and the Royal Navy. This would
then give them the option to force a surrender through a blockade or to
launch and all out invasion.Submarine launched nuclear weapons were the ultimate deterrent against this threat. They were almost impossible to destroy preemitvely as they hid in the vastness of the sea and inter-continental missiles
could be launched in retaliation to any invasion or nuclear attack. The
Soviets also had submarine launched nuclear missiles and the only hope
of defending against them was to find, track and attack them with Royal
Navy 'attack' submarines; Anti-submarine warfare ships and
anti-submarine patrol aircraft equipped with detection sensors and
torpedoes. Today Russia has four
submarines equipped with inter-continental nuclear missiles. These
submarines were launched in the 80s and are on their last legs. As they
are old, the noise signature they give off is significant. The Royal
Navy's newest submarine, the Astute class (costing £1B each), can
easily detect and track them every time they are at sea and would sink
them before they could launch their missiles at UK population centres. Although the Russians
are trying to re-purpose some old submarines as their new generation of
nuclear missile launch platforms, this is yet to materialise and may
not. The Russian Navy has struggled to commission new submarines due
to limited budgets and an erosion of their defence industry. It is
unlikely that they will succeed with this.If the UK
withdrew its submarine launched nuclear deterrent capability, there is a
strong possibility that Russia could be persuaded do the
same. Furthermore, China has one old submarine with Nuclear missiles
which don't have the range to reach the UK. Indian missiles are out of
range of the UK, likewise Israel and Pakistan only has free fall bombs. If the UK replaces
Trident, at a cost of £40B, then this will motivate Russia, China and
India to develop nuclear bombs. Likewise, there is a strong argument
that if the UK didn't replace Trident then the Submarine launched
nuclear deterrents of Russia and China would wither on the vine. And it
is likely that France would also follow our lead in due course; even the
US. The UK government could develop this as a diplomatic strategic
objective and open up negotiations. One argument for
replacing Trident would be to assure the UK's place on the UN security
council. Removal for not having nuclear weapons is far from certain and
India, with a nuclear capability is not a member. Either way, at £40B
that makes it a very expensive club to join and there is more to being a
super-power or having super-influence than having nuclear weapons. The world has certainly
changed since the cold war ended. We are now enjoying a peace that will
be long and enduring. Ideological governments have melted away and
democracy, trade and inter-governmental organisations are the new order.
Russia's democracy is developing and their biggest foreign policy
interest is their essential oil and gas exports. China is economically,
and structurally, co-dependent on the West as is India and Pakistan. Any
future conflict between these powers are likely to be limited and in
the soft form of cyber-attacks, 3rd world influence, economic trade
and industrial espionage. The UK is not under
threat of being attacked by nuclear weapons from any state on earth.
Furthermore, the UK could not launch trident without the involvement of
the US and if it did, the US would most likely deliver their own strike.
The UK is also not under
threat of being invaded. No nation has the capabilities to invade the
UK. France and Germany don't have the hardware or resources. We are
beyond the reach of the Russian Army, Navy and Air force. Even if they
were closer, they couldn't sustain a military campaign against the UK or
launch an invasion. Even the USA would struggle militarily to invade
the UK. And China and India are not capable of any operations outside
their own region. So replacing Trident
seems a big waste of £40B and would offer the UK little or no military,
diplomatic, political, security or moral advantage. There's not threat
of a nuclear strike and we are not at risk of a conventional attack
on UK soil.Of course the Treasury would claw-back from some cash from cancelling the Trident replacement. However the UK government would have to compensate with increased commitments to conventional equipment.UK armed forces would
certainly benefit from some of the £40Billion saved being spent on other
hardware to meet the growing global diplomatic and defence needs.

The RAF 's expensive
Euro fighter is defending UK airspace despite no actual threat to our
airspace. Yet is has insufficient strategic assets to lift and deploy
an expeditionary land force and deliver and support long range
air-strikes.

The Royal Navy
has the best submarines and air-defence ships in the world. The two new
aircraft carriers will provide enhanced diplomatic leverage to future
governments. But the Navy's assets are hugely expensive and so limited
in numbers. The Royal Navy doesn't have enough ships to provide the
adequate response to diplomatic, security and humanitarian objectives.
It needs a mix of more world-class vessels as well as
affordable utilitarian ships. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary should have the
standing capability for delivering humanitarian relief in the event of
war or natural disaster.

The Army, while
reducing to the historic expeditionary level of 80,000, will also have
equipment needs in the form of more versatile fighting vehicles,
improved communications equipment, intelligence gathering assets,
helicopters and battlefield strike capabilities such as artillery and
drones. There will also be a need to invest in the infrastructure and
equipment to continuously train reservists and, possibly, local armies.

Increased investment in
conventional equipment to enhance the capabilities of the armed forces
would offer greater influence on the world stage. It would enhance our
projection of hard and soft power. It would boost the manufacturing
base and defence exports. It would also allow the UK to take a moral
lead in nuclear disarmament, which would enhance our prestige,
reputation and influence in the world. So let's start
to discuss and debate the option of no Trident replacement. Let's start
now with limited and restricted patrols. Consider silo launched land
capabilities as a replacement to sea-launched if we can't stomach the
concept of Pakistan, North Korean and possible Iran being in a nuclear
club without the UK. But one thing is for sure, the UK does not need to
spend £40B on a state-of-the-art submarine launched nuclear deterrent to
preserve the peace in the next 50 years.